+- 2DWorlds Forums (http://2dworlds.buildism.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (http://2dworlds.buildism.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Debate (http://2dworlds.buildism.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=36)
+--- Thread: A modern 'civil war'? (/showthread.php?tid=9323)
A modern 'civil war'? - lol - 05-13-2012
Here's a new debate topic.
![[Image: sANJ5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/sANJ5.png)
If the US were to separate into 4 different regions (As shown in the map) for no explainable reason, which region would win in a war against each other?
Take these factors into consideration:
Infrastructure
Population
Economy
Agriculture
Land
Regional Military Possessions
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - noob007 - 05-13-2012
The green part, of course.
Don't underestimate California. xP
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Kieron - 05-13-2012
My vote goes to the green side. The other 3 parts would have the same problems as Hitler did trying to invade Britain in WW2. There is no land to make it easy to attack Hawaii and Alaska, Alaska can only be attacked if Canada was a part of the US.
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Franco30557 - 05-13-2012
Red side, because they are the underdogs.
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Qwertygiy - 05-13-2012
I'd have to go for the Blue. You've got DC, you've got Texas, and you've got Florida. There are a lot of military installations there, and I'm pretty sure you reeeeally don't want to have NASA against you in a civil war.
As for Kieron's opinion on Hawaii and Alaska,
A) Remember Pearl Harbor
B) Who's going to attack from Alaska? The only thing Alaska would be usable for in a war is the oil, because there's pretty much nobody home up there. Also, Canada is not a factor because you can't use a land invasion on Alaska. Juneau, the capital, actually has no roads leading out of it, and there's of course the Yukon mountains.
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Kieron - 05-13-2012
(05-13-2012, 01:13 PM)Qwertygiy Wrote: I'd have to go for the Blue. You've got DC, you've got Texas, and you've got Florida. There are a lot of military installations there, and I'm pretty sure you reeeeally don't want to have NASA against you in a civil war.
As for Kieron's opinion on Hawaii and Alaska,
A) Remember Pearl Harbor
B) Who's going to attack from Alaska? The only thing Alaska would be usable for in a war is the oil, because there's pretty much nobody home up there. Also, Canada is not a factor because you can't use a land invasion on Alaska. Juneau, the capital, actually has no roads leading out of it, and there's of course the Yukon mountains.
A) The Americans didn't know the Japanese were coming, the British knew the Germans were going to attack
B) It isn't a victory unless all of the land is conquered, whose to say they will attack from it, they'll probably defend from it.
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Qwertygiy - 05-13-2012
A ) Actually, we did, but DC couldn't alert Hawaii fast enough. They're still pointing fingers in the telegraph department.
B ) Who would be insane enough to try to conquer all of Alaska? That's like saying to control Russia, you don't just need Moscow and St. Petersburg, you need all of Siberia too. If you want to rule Alaska, you just need to control the southern edge, where all the towns and supplies are.
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Kieron - 05-13-2012
A) Objection. The Americans only knew the Japanese were going to attack, they just didn't know where or when.
B) True dat
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - noob007 - 05-13-2012
The green part has like the most advanced military technology (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman!) and all the trade with Asia! (China, America is soooooo dependent on it)
RE: A modern 'civil war'? - Kieron - 05-13-2012
Noob has a point, the Green part is so close to Asia, that they can blockade the other 3 parts before they could even attempt.